Yes on Newsom, No on A, Yes on H
Gavin Newsom deserves to be re-elected for two reasons: He's done well on the homeless issue, which the Chronicle rightly called "the shame of the city," and, just as important, he's not a San Francisco progressive.
No on Prop. A, yes on Prop. C, No on Prop. E, Yes on Prop. H.
No on Prop. A: In effect giving Muni workers a raise is a bad idea, but Peskin couldn't have put this turkey together without a pay-off to the unions. Until Muni drivers are no longer able to practice "sick-outs"--that is, simply not showing up for work without even calling in sick---they shouldn't be handed any more perks/benefits from the city. But most egregious is the anti-parking poison pill inserted by Peskin at the last minute cancelling out Prop. H. Prop. H is a sensible bill to allow enough parking to be built for the thousands of new market-rate housing units the city's aggressively pro-development policies are encouraging.
Yes on Prop. C: City progressives hate Prop. H, among other reasons, because a rich guy bankrolled signature-gathering to get it on the ballot. Is that any worse than allowing the BOS or the mayor to put a measure on the ballot without even a public hearing? 10,396 signatures were required to put Prop. H on the ballot, not merely the mayor or four members of the BOS, which is all that's required now.
No on Prop. E: The progressive BOS majority---Ammiano, Daly, McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval---put this on the ballot, though it originated in the fevered brain of Chris Daly, who has long had an obsession with besting Mayor Newsom. Daly likes the question time in the British Parliament, wherein the Primie Minister is hooted and jeered at by members of parliament. If passed Prop. E will only lead to more incivility in our politics, which is what Daly wants.
Yes on Prop. H: For years now the city's Planning Dept. has pursued an aggressively pro-development housing policy---endorsed by both the Board of Supervisors and the mayor---while, at the same time, discouraging developers from providing adequate parking for all those market-rate housing units, a dumb policy that's only going to make traffic worse in the city.
Discouraging parking in the city is part of the city's overall anti-car policy pushed by the bike nuts and their many enablers in city government. By passing Prop. H and defeating Prop. A, city voters would send a clear message to the city's anti-car forces to back off.
Labels: Gavin Newsom, Homelessness, Traffic in SF
posted by Rob Anderson @ 11:50 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Your support of Prop. H to get back at the “bike nuts” is tantamount to trying to kill a mosquito with a bazooka. I understand and sympathize with your frustration with the bike advocates because they often to push their agenda to the exclusion of everybody else. But like Prop. 90 last year, Prop. H goes way too far to address a legitimate problem. Prop. H will in effect be the end of Muni since most Muni bus lines begin and end their runs on Market Street which will become even more clogged with traffic.
If Proposition H does pass, then they should close Market Street to car traffic so I’m not late to work everyday because my bus is stuck in traffic on Market Street.
The reality is that San Francisco was a city laid out before the automobile became the primary means of transportation. You a NEVER going to satisfy the demand for parking in this city and the more we try to the worse it will get. While I agree that the Muni sick out rules should be changed that shouldn't preclude voting for something that will make at least some incremental improvement in Muni service. Other issues such a work rules can be addressed in a seperate initiative. I think SPUR did a good analysis of Prop. A which is why I'm voting for it.
More parking is more cars on the road. That means more congestion. Great idea!
SF doesn't need that. I'm very happy to see H go down in flames.
"You are NEVER going to satisfy the demand for parking in this city and the more we try to the worse it will get."
The problem is the city's progressive leaders are trying to have it both ways: encouraging thousands of new market-rate housing units while discouraging developers from providing parking spaces for those units, which means more cars on our streets looking for scarce parking. This makes traffic on our streets a lot worse than it needs to be, which is bad for Muni. And both downtown businesses and neighborhood shopping districts need adequate parking for both city residents and for out-of-town shoppers who come to the city to shop, dine, or just visit.
"Other issues such as [Muni] work rules can be addressed in a seperate initiative."
But Prop. A actually makes addressing Muni work rules less likely, since one of its key elements---the bait that Peskin used to get the unions behind it---is to bump up the whole Muni pay scale. As it is, 75% of Muni's budget goes for labor and benefits. Prop. A will kick that up a notch. So when will Muni work rules be addressed? Never, that's when.
"More parking is more cars on the road. That means more congestion. Great idea! SF doesn't need that. I'm very happy to see H go down in flames."
Encouraging more cars on our streets by encouraging development is the de facto city policy now. Actually discouraging developers from providing parking spaces for those developments means more cars on the street looking for even scarcer parking. That's just dumb and will make our traffic worse in the near future.
P.S. It's so bold of you to make a comment that sums up what every other political lemming in the city is saying---and to do it anonymously! SF progressivism: intellectually lame and personally/politically spineless.
well worse congestion is one of the things that makes people think twice about using their cars in the city.
so if, as you say claim, people are going to be driving around in ever more congested streets looking for non-existent parkings spots, then they'll probably think twice about using a car in the city. Maybe they'll think about taking advantage of transit, walking, biking, car sharing, or any of the number of alternatives to keeping their own personal automobile in a compact, dense city.
or we can further accomodate automobiles and encourage more cars on the road with crap like prop H.
the city doesn't owe it to real estate developers to cater to them by providing parking for their little projects. this isn't San Diego.
The city should stop catering to automobiles in general-- it's a black hole for sucking up city funds & there are already plenty of cars on the road. In fact, there is so much car traffic that people don't feel safe walking down the street. That's how you know you overindulged in planning around automobiles.
Post a Comment
<< Home